# Stevens v. Wells Fargo Bank

> District Court, W.D. North Carolina · October 9, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10256329

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. North Carolina
- **Decided:** October 9, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10256329

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:20-cv-440-RJC

TIFFANY STEVENS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) ORDER
)
WELLS FARGO BANK, )
)
Defendant. )
____________________________________ )

THIS MATTER is before the Court on initial review of the pro se Amended Complaint,
(Doc. No. 5). Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 4).
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed this employment discrimination action on August 10, 2020. (Doc. No. 1).
The Complaint was dismissed on initial review and Plaintiff was given the opportunity to amend.
(Doc. No. 4). The Amended Complaint is presently before the Court for initial review.
Plaintiff purports to seek relief for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and
other unspecified federal law. (Doc. No. 5 at 4). Plaintiff identifies as her disabilities a “mental
disorder and fractured ankle.” (Doc. No. 5 at 5). Plaintiff contends that she took a medical leave
of absence in March 2018 due to “work related Anxiety, Depression, and physical stress to the
body” due to “repetitious physical labor and force extended work hours” that Wells Fargo forced
her to undertake in her own department and other departments. (Doc. No. 5 at 10). While Plaintiff
was on medical leave, she was also diagnosed with posterior malleolus right ankle fracture that is
caused by walking, standing, pulling, pushing for extended periods of time. (Doc. No. 5 at 11).
Plaintiff contends that the Wells Fargo management team, human resources, accommodation
1
management, and ethics employees discriminated against her, invaded her privacy, slandered her,
and inflicted emotional distress and that she was ultimately terminated due to her illness and injury.
(Doc. No. 5 at 11). Plaintiff claims that she and a few other employees had been the victims of the
same treatment, that this was reported to Wells Fargo’s human resources and employee ethics, and
that no resolution was reached. (Id.). Plaintiff alleges discriminatory termination of her

employment, failure to accommodate a disability, unequal terms and conditions of employment,
retaliation, invasion of privacy and mishandling of records, and defamation of character. (Doc. No.
5 at 5, 8). Plaintiff seeks compensatory, punitive, and consequential damages.
Plaintiff filed a Notice of Discrimination based on disability with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission on March 18, 2019 stating:
I. I have been employed by the above employer since approximately July 2016 as
an Operations Clerk II. My job duties require me to lift heavy objects and walk
during an extended hour shift. I am an individual with a disability and a physical
impairment which substantially effects a major life function. In March 2018, I took
a medical leave of absence until July 2018. During this period, I learned that due to
my job duties, one of my major life functions was negatively affected and required
me to seek treatment and possible surgery. I was returned to work with medical
restrictions of an 8 hour, sit down shift. I was accommodated and placed in a vacant
teller position, however, in mid-October 2018, I was informed that I would no
longer be accommodated and that I needed to return to my regular job duties.
Because I was unable to return to my original job duties, I was forced to take a
leave of absence without pay which I was approved to take until May 2019. On or
about March 14, 2019, my manager informed me that if I did not return to work by
April 1, 2019, I would be terminated. I believe that I could have continued to
perform the teller job duties as an accommodation because there were teller
positions that were vacant and worked by temporary employees.

II. I believe that I was discriminated against and denied reasonable accommodation
and discriminated against in violation of The Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990, as amended.

(Doc. No. 5 at 13).

The EEOC issued a Notice of Right stating that it was unable to conclude that the
2
information establishes a violation of the statute. (Doc. No. 5 at 15). Plaintiff states that she
received the Notice of Right to Sue on March 5, 2020. (Doc. No. 5 at 6).
Plaintiff states in her Amended Complaint that she was unable to file the Complaint within
90 days of receiving the Notice of Right to Sue due to COVID-19 and other “serious unfortunate
circumstances.” (Doc. No. 5 at 11-12).

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must review the Complaint to
determine whether it is subject to dismissal on the grounds that it is “frivolous or malicious [or]
fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In its frivolity
review, this Court must determine whether the Complaint raises an indisputably meritless legal
theory or is founded upon clearly baseless factual contentions, such as fantastic or delusional
scenarios. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989).
III. DISCUSSION
The ADA prohibits employers from discriminating based on the known physical or mental

impairments of a “qualified individual with a disability.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. To state an
ADA discrimination claim, a plaintiff must show that she (1) was a qualified individual; (2) was
discharged; (3) was fulfilling the legitimate expectation of the employer; and (4) the circumstances
of the discharge raise a reasonable inference of unlawful discrimination. Reynolds v. Am. Nat’l
Red Cross, 701 F.3d 143, 150 (4th Cir. 2012). To make out an ADA retaliation claim, a plaintiff
must establish: (1) she engaged in a protected activity; (2) her employer took adverse action against
her; and (3) a causal connection existed between the adverse activity and protected action.
Haulbrook v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 252 F.3d 696, 706 (4th Cir. 2001).
Liberally construing the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that
3
Defendant failed to provide a reasonable accommodation for Plaintiff’s disabilities, and terminated
her employment based on those disabilities and in retaliation for complaining about the lack of
accommodation. Therefore, these claims will be permitted to pass initial review.
Plaintiff makes additional allegations, including for the invasion of her privacy, slander,
defamation, and the infliction of emotional distress. However, Plaintiff fails to support these

conclusory claims with any factual allegations. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (requiring a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief). Plaintiff has failed to state a
plausible claim for any of these alleged violations, and therefore, these claims will be dismissed
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
IV. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint has passed initial review on claims of discrimination on
the basis of a disability and for retaliation. The remaining claims are dismissed without prejudice
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:

1. The Amended Complaint has passed initial review for discrimination based on a
disability and for retaliation, and the remaining claims are dismissed without
prejudice.
2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to mail summons forms
to Plaintiff for Plaintiff to fill out and return for service of process on Defendant
Wells Fargo Bank. Once the Court receives the summons form, the Clerk shall
then direct the U.S. Marshal to effectuate service on Defendant pursuant to Rule
4(c)(3). The Clerk is respectfully instructed to note on the docket when the form
has been mailed to Plaintiff. All costs of service shall be advanced by the United
4
States. Any recovery in this action will be subject to payment of fees and costs,
including service of process fees and the $400.00 filing fee.

Signed: October 8, 2020

Robert J. Conrad, Jr. es,
United States District Judge “ev

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10256329. Public record. Not legal advice.